02-11-74 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

5_32 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1974 11COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) present. He briefly talked about the traffic control and widening of Ireland Road. Regarding assessed valuations, the property came to $25,100 and soon would be in the vicinity of $93,000 with the improvement and widening of Ireland Road. Mr. Fred Wilson, 4701 Fellows, indicated that he had attended a meeting on the energy problem and despite all that had been said, the fact remained that there has been no plans for the future. He then talked about the good job the Area Plan Commission has been doing in the past in planning for the future. He talked about the various improvements in the community and then commented on the rezoning in question. He felt the Council should develop the city in an orderly and consistent manner. Mr. Russell Bergman, 4523 Fellows, indicated that he had given verbal consent to the developers; however, his wife strongly objected to the rezoning. H indicated that he would not be in favor of the rezoning for that reason. Mr. Robert Rayl, 4707 Fellows, referred to the overhead projector. He indicated that his area had been annexed to the city against the peoples' wishes and they had accepted that. He stated that a 200 -foot acreage was purchased by the property owners along the K -Mart property in order to keep the area from becoming commercial. He expressed concern about the whole area becoming commercial and the problem of acces off Ireland Road. He felt that the area north was already rezoned commercial and that area should used for commercial purposes. Mr. Tony Miller, 4637 Fellows, also referred to the overhead projec- tor. He indicated that he would not sign the agreement presented by the developers to the property owners giving consent to the rezoning. He talked about the traffic problem and access on Ireland Road. He felt a greater traffic problem would be the result of the rezoning if approved. He indicated that he did not want to stop progress but he was hopeful that the neighborhood could be preserved. He presented to the Council the agreement that the developers had requested the propert owners to sign. He indicated that he strongly opposed the rezoning. Mr. George Williamson, 4717 Fellows, indicated that he felt the area was a beautiful area and he had lived there for seven year He did not want to see it become commercial. Mr. Dunfee indicated that he was sorry for the feelin caused by the rezoning; however, he felt the developers had displayed a great deal of good will in attempting to rezone the property in question. He mentioned that notices had gone out to the property owners of the Area Plan Commission hearing, and the public hearing being held at the present time before the Council had been advertised. He suggested that perhaps in future rezonings the Council authorize the petitioner to send a notice of the Council meeting to all property owners affected by the rezoning, as is done before the Area Plan.Commission hearing. Mr. Dunfee then stated that, at the time the K -Mart property was rezoned, it was suggested that the people have a buffer for that property. He stated that Mr. Miller is the northerly most owner of property to the area in question and is closer to the back door of the K -Mart complex. He talked about the dis tances of the other homes in relation to the property in question. He stated that property, under the zoning ordinance, cannot be used for any other purpose than that shown on the site plan, and the developers were looking to the future and planning for it. There are.plans to install an addi- tional signal at Ireland Road in order to allow the people access to Ireland. He stated that it would be some number of months before development of the property could even be started, whereupon Mr. Miller indicated that Mr. Dunfee had fabricated his rebuttal. Mr. Dunfee indicated that there was no subterfuge. He asked that the Council refer to the agreement that was presented to them that was drafted by.the developers. The agreement showed, in Exhibit C, a purchase price to the three abutting property owners of $3,200 for two lots, another lot at $1,600 and another lot at $1,500. He stated that this figured out to 8� a foot. He referred to paragraph 1 whereby the developers agreed to amend the petition to exclude that portion of the property in objection. There were comments made from persons in the audience, at which time, Mr. Dunfee questioned the procedure of rebuttal. He asked that he be allowed to speak in rebuttal and then discussion be terminated. Chairman Newburn indicated that he was giving everyone an opportunity to speak. Mr. James Roemer, City Attorney, stated that, normally, it is the procedure for a petitioner to present his petition with the remonstrators being given an opportunity to speak and then rebuttal from the petitioner only. He felt that the Council could allow further discussion; however, it would then only be fair to allow Mr. Dunfee to speak again. Councilman Szymkowiak felt anyone who had not spoken should be allowed to speak. Mr. James R. Settles, 244 Ireland Road, indicated that he owned property in the middle of the commercial area and he "wanted out ". He stated that he did not have l) access to Ireland Road. He could not understand how the properties all around him could be rezoned to commercial and he left in the middle. Mr. Rayl and Mr. Wilson again spoke against the rezoning. Councilman Taylor referred to the overhead projector and the establishment of the commercial properties in the area. He stated that this was just the beginning of commercial development. The area was logical for commercial development; however, there were many beautiful homes in the area also. He understood the viewpoint of the people who wanted to sell out. He felt that the majority of the residents wanted to keep the area residential. He indicated that he would abide by the wishes of the people in his district and would oppose the rezoning. Councilman Parent indicate, that he had objected to the rezoning because of the extension south of the K -Mart property line. He asked Mr. Johnson to speak on the matter. Mr. Richard S. Johnson, Director of the Area Plan Commission, referred to the overhead projector and indicated that the land is shown for commercial' development on the land -use map. He stated that the commission recommended that this go to the Council unfavorably only because of the extension south of the K -Mart property line. Councilman Serge talked about traffic counts on Ireland Road. He understood why the residents wanted to sell.' He indicated that he had understood that a buffer zone was to be given to the residents of 200 feet He stated that, apparently, some of the residents had agreed to that. He asked if that was the case. Mr. James Locker, one of the developers in the matter, indicated that the Area Plan Commissi had accepted the 200 -foot buffer. Mr. Locker referred to the overhead projector and indicated that it was proposed that commercial zoning would be stopped at a point allowing the residents the right to acquire the property for the buffer zone. Councilman Szymkowiak wondered what would happen should the residents decide not to purchase that land. Mr. Dunfee stated that, if the property was not purchased, it would remain in the residential classification. He indicated that the developers do not have any plans to seek commercial rezoning in the buffer area. Mr. Locker indicated that he would go on record stating that the area would remain in its present zoning whether it was pur- chased or not. Council President Nemeth asked what would be built on the site, and Mr. Dunfee indicated that the developers did not know exactly what would be constructed because the property was being rezoned to "C -2" Planned Shopping Center and that classification allowed 43 uses. He stated that the area would be governed by the zoning regulations. Councilman Kopczynski made a motion that the ordinance go to the Council as favorable, seconded by Councilman Szymkowiak. The motion carried. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, IDENTIFIED AS ORDINANCE NO. 4990, ORDINANCE NO. 3702, AS AMENDED, TO THE e s